Has Ecumenism changed the meaning of EENS?

[thewanderer]

I’m just going to add that different theologians have different interpretations of who all can be included in the ‘inculpable ignorance’ clause. The Church has no official teaching on this yet, however, the Church does teach exactly what Thistle wrote in his post. One must receive baptism (in one of the forms already presented) in order to have any hope of salvation. Whether you like it or not that is the teaching of the Church. Always has been always will.

 

[reconman]

What exactly do you take this to mean?

I take JPII at his word, that he meant exactly what he said. How else would I take it?

 

[sdegutis]

Nice try, those are all quotes from popes and saints who lived before the reformation. Since the catholic church was the only Christian Church back then, what else would you have them say?

The only real difference between the Lutherans/Calvinists/etc and Montanists/Arians/etc are that the later heresies retained much popularity even until today, whereas the earlier heresies died out almost completely. But you can basically look at any heretical church, whether Lutheran or Pentecostal or Baptist or Docetist or Montanist or Sabellianist as the same.

And you still didn’t address this:

John Paul II: “Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all”.

Obviously this isn’t in contradiction to other Popes or the Church’s teaching, even though at first glance it seems incompatible. The Church has already offered an interpretation of this, namely, that someone with invincible ignorance might be saved even though they never joined the Catholic Church. Only defining “invincible” is the hard part.

 

[thewanderer]

And how would you reconcile your assumption with this:

CCC 1260: … "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved… "

Like I told you before, he can be saved through the implicit baptism of desire. if he is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of the Catholic Church then he is a perfect candidate for the implicit Baptism of desire, so long as he seeks the truth and does the will of God etc.

Again, i have to wonder whether or not you’ve actually read what Thistle wrote…

 

[reconman]

I’m just going to add that different theologians have different interpretations of who all can be included in the ‘inculpable ignorance’ clause. The Church has no official teaching on this yet, however, the Church does teach exactly what Thistle wrote in his post. One must receive baptism (in one of the forms already presented) in order to have any hope of salvation. Whether you like it or not that is the teaching of the Church. Always has been always will.

Yea, not one of you has dealt with the ccc article in question. Apparently you all know better than the ccc. Which is the teaching of the church, whether you like it or not . Always has been, always will.

 

[sdegutis]

I take JPII at his word, that he meant exactly what he said. How else would I take it?

That’s a terrible approach to interpretation, because it only hides the fact that you’re doing the interpreting in the first place. If we took that same approach when interpreting Scripture, we would say “oh look, Jesus said I need to hate my mother and father and wife and children, so now I’m going to hate them” we would only do ourselves a world of trouble. Everything needs to be evaluated carefully in light of everything else. And the longer time goes on, the harder this gets, since more things get added to “everything else”. Anyway I digress.

 

[thewanderer]

I take JPII at his word, that he meant exactly what he said. How else would I take it?

The reason I ask is that there is more than one way to understand the idea that salvation is made concretely available to all. I do not at all see how my position or thistles contradicts this statement, yet you clearly believe that it does, hence I was wondering exactly what you took this statement to imply so that I can try to understand better why you seem to think I am contradicting it?

 

[reconman]

That’s a terrible approach to interpretation, because it only hides the fact that you’re doing the interpreting in the first place.

Oh, ok, you tell me what it means then.

 

[thewanderer]

Yea, not one of you has dealt with the ccc article in question. Apparently you all know better than the ccc. Which is the teaching of the church, whether you like it or not . Always has been, always will.

Can you please explain to me how our understanding contradicts the CCC?

I cannot for the life of me see how it does, so I would appreciate it if you would explain why you think I am contradicting the CCC.

 

[severus68]

It’s about Pope Boniface VIII and the papal bull “UNAM SANCTAM” (1302). A political move more than anything which was quickly abandoned by his near predecessors and every pope since then as just that: politics.

Since there were no protestants at the time, it was easy for him to declare that “anyone outside the Catholic church” could not be saved. Like I said, it was purely political and was dismissed by the church centuries ago.

The adherents to this idea reject the statements by any succeeding pontiff, Vatican II or the CCC regarding this issue.

Thank you.

 

[severus68]

Sorry, I don’t believe Jews and Muslims or anyone else is going to Hell just because they’re not Baptised. You can believe whatever you want to believe.

 

[reconman]

The reason I ask is that there is more than one way to understand the idea that salvation is made concretely available to all.

ok, I’m listening, what other ways?

I do not at all see how my position or thistles contradicts this statement

You imply that there is no salvation outside the catholic church. Yet the ccc and JPII (among many others) clearly state that there is. So which is it? Is the ccc right or are you? Is JPII right or are you?

 

[Melchior_1]

I seriously think that there’s a middle ground that encompasses what the three (four?) of you are saying. I provided an example of one that fits, I wouldn’t be shocked if there’s another.

 

[thewanderer]

ok, I’m listening, what other ways?

Its very hard to say what the ‘other’ ways are when I’m not sure how exactly you are interpreting it. I will explain how I understand it and then you can tell me whether or not you agree with it.

“Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all”.

All that this means is that each person must have the real possibility of attaining salvation. This says nothing about the means to salvation, simply that an actual possibility must exist.

I fail to see how saying that salvation must come through one of the forms of baptism already brought up contradicts this statement, rather it is simply clarifying the concrete means to salvation that are available.

You imply that there is no salvation outside the catholic church. Yet the ccc and JPII (among many others) clearly state that there is. So which is it? Is the ccc right or are you? Is JPII right or are you?

You have clearly not paid any attention to the nuances I have tried to bring out in my first post on this thread or that Thistle brought out in his post. Correct me if I am mistaken, but when you say that the idea that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is false, you believe this to mean that only those who are visibly practicing Catholics throughout their life on earth can be saved. **This is not what I mean by this phrase. **I have tried to explain to you multiple times that this is not what I mean by this phrase. I have pointed out that baptism by water is not the only means of being baptized and I have tried to point out, in particular, the implicit baptism by desire so that you can realize that this is not what I mean by the phrase. But for some reason you still do not seem to realize that the phrase that there is no salvation outside of the Church doesn’t mean what you assume that it means.

 

[reconman]

Can you please explain to me how our understanding contradicts the CCC?

I cannot for the life of me see how it does, so I would appreciate it if you would explain why you think I am contradicting the CCC.

You’ve got to be kidding.

CCC 1260: … "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved"

What don’t you get about that?

“Every man?” Is that what you don’t get?

“Can be saved”? Do you not get that either?

“Ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church?” How about that one?

Like I said, if you want the truth on this don’t believe me, take your catechism in hand and go ask a priest. Your fairytale of “only us special catholics can go to heaven” will be ruined, but you will have the truth

 

[thewanderer]

You’ve got to be kidding.

CCC 1260: … "Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved"

What don’t you get about that?

“Every man?” Is that what you don’t get?

“Can be saved”? Do you not get that either?

“Ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church?” How about that one?

Like I said, if you want the truth on this don’t believe me, take your catechism in hand and go ask a priest. Your fairytale of “only us special catholics can go to heaven” will be ruined, but you will have the truth

Let me repeat what the definition of implicit baptism of desire is.

• Baptism of Desire - Implicit (those who may (not will) be saved through invincible ignorance meaning those who through no fault of their own do not know Christ, his Gospel and his Church but nevertheless in that ignorance still live a life in accordance with Christ’s teachings)

Please look at what this is saying. This is saying that if there is any person who is ignorant of the Truth of the Church and her teachings through no fault of his own they have the possibility of being saved if they follow the truth to thebest of their ability.

To me that is the exact same thing as the statement from the catechism that you keep quoting.

The catechism says that every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ has the opportunity of salvation ( not is garanteed salvation) so long as they follow the truth to the best of their ability and knowledge.

Again, let me reiterate. This particular situation is the exact situation to which I am refering by the implicit baptism of desire.

I honestly do not see how the two concepts could even possibly be contradictory. If you want to get anywhere in this discussion you are going to have to show me how the two are contradictory. I cannot see them as contradictory because when I read the two they seem to be saying the exact same thing. If you believve that they are contradictory please show me how and then I will be more than willing to try and talk about it and figure out how to reconcile all the statements made by various popes and church councils. However, unless you can show that these two ideas are contradictory then there is nothing to talk about. If they are not contradictory then there is absolutely no problem. You seem to be the onlly person that sees them as contradictory. If they are actually contradictory there must be some way of actually explaining it so that the rest of us can understand that they are contradictory. If you are still convinced that they are contradictory please explain how this is so.

 

[reconman]

Its very hard to say what the ‘other’ ways are when I’m not sure how exactly you are interpreting it.

There’s nothing to interpret. He said what he said. JPII did not mince words or couch them in euphemisms.

I will explain how I understand it and then you can tell me whether or not you agree with it.

“Since salvation is offered to all, it must be made concretely available to all”.

All that this means is that each person must have the real possibility of attaining salvation. This says nothing about the means to salvation, simply that an actual possibility must exist.

I would agree.

You have clearly not paid any attention to the nuances I have tried to bring out in my first post on this thread or that Thistle brought out in his post. Correct me if I am mistaken, but when you say that the idea that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church is false, you believe this to mean that only those who are visibly practicing Catholics throughout their life on earth can be saved. **This is not what I mean by this phrase. **

Aww c’mon, now you’re dancing around. Thistle clearly stated there is " No salvation outside the catholic church."

Now you’re telling me that is not what he meant?

And later when I asked you if a protestant could be saved you said:

"If he manages to receive baptism through one of the forms presented despite this, then yes, he has a shot at salvation.

If not, then no, not a chance"

 

[thewanderer]

There’s nothing to interpret. He said what he said. JPII did not mince words or couch them in euphemisms.

I would agree.

Aww c’mon, now you’re dancing around. Thistle clearly stated there is " No salvation outside the catholic church."

Now you’re telling me that is not what he meant?

And later when I asked you if a protestant could be saved you said:

"If he manages to receive baptism through one of the forms presented despite this, then yes, he has a shot at salvation.

If not, then no, not a chance"

You seem to be conveniently avoiding the idea of implicit baptism by desire.

The claim that there is no salvation outside of the church means that no one can enter heaven without first having received baptism through one of the forms of baptism that have been explained. If one receives baptism through any one of these means then they are a member of the Catholic Church. One of these means is the implicit baptism of desire. This is when somebody who is ignorant through no fault of their own of the Truth of the Catholic Church follows the Truth as well as they can. In other words, someone, say a jew, who has never heard of Catholicism has the possibility to enter the Catholic Church through an implicit baptism of desire even if he never hears about the Catholic Church. If he lives correctly and so receives this implicit baptism by desire he would then become a Catholic,even if he never heard of the Catholic Church, and so be able to get to heaven. In this scenario the idea that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church is still correct without contradicting the idea that every man has the chance of salvation.

Please do not continue to claim that these two ideas are contradictory until you show me how, despite my above explanation, they could possibly be contradictory. If you can actually show me they are contradictory, then I am more than willing to listen and try to figure out what the Church actually teaches, however I cannot see them as contradictory and it continuing to repeat the same sentance from the catechism over and over is not going to help me see how they are contradictory. Neither is a refusal to listen to what I have said and actually address the points I have made. Like I said before, if you want to claim that my understanding contradicts the CCC please substantiate your claim as I have already explained multiple times how it in fact does not contradict the CCC.

 

[reconman]

No, that’s not “simply” why. If this man was morally upright but refused to join the Catholic Church, then why did he refuse to join the Catholic Church, and in what way is his reason for his refusal somehow not sinful?

I already answered this, but I’ll answer it again. Maybe he’s happy being a religious Jew.

Now I’ll ask you the same question again, I doubt you’ll answer it (again), but here it is:

Is our Jewish friend going to hell simply because he refused a polite invitation to join the Catholic church?

I can’t imagine an actual reason. In fact, I have half a mind to ask you: what do you think Jesus Christ came here to do

Salvation

, if we didn’t need to join His Church through Baptism in order to be saved?

People can be saved without baptism. Read the CCC

Why then did he tell us to preach the gospel to all nations, baptizing them into His Church?

To receive the fullness of truth.

, I would recommend examining thistle’s points in depth and discussing calmly any difficulties you have in understanding them.

I have, every one.

They are very in line with the Catholic Church’s teaching,

No they aren’t

 

[thewanderer]

(Snip)

People can be saved without baptism. Read the CCC
(Snip)

Please substantiate this claim. This is not what the CCC says.